Fuel Treatments and Forest Health: A Film and Interactive DVD

AFP: 2005-4 Task 1: Extension of current project (JFS 01-3-1-05 "Demonstrating the ecological effects of mechanical thinning and prescribed fire on mixed-conifer forests")

PI: Malcolm NorthUSFS Sierra Nevada Research Center2121 2nd Ave., Suite A-101Davis, CA 95616530-754-7398Fax: 530-752-1819mnorth@fs.fed.us

Point of Contact and Federal Cooperator: Malcolm North

Duration of Project: May 2005- September 2006

AbstractCommunication between scientists and fuels managers has been limited because research results often only appear in a diverse array of journals making it difficult to locate applied information relevant to particular fuels conditions. In theory the internet could bridge this divide, but searches often produce a mass of unfiltered technical information without clear local relevance. Manager’s need a base information platform with an intuitive organization from which to search the internet. This proposal seeks funding to use a new technology, interactive DVD, to gain the user’s interest, provide a common information portal and a tool for flexible information acquisition. Interactive DVD provides a film, special features for more in-depth information, and an updating website organized as a search platform for targeted information gathering. The film would build on the Teakettle Experiment’s existing outreach and provide information about the different effects of prescribed fire and mechanical thinning on forest ecosystems. When the DVD is inserted in a computer or player it produces a website that allows viewers to play the movie or the special features, search a library of pdfs or link to information that is visually and thematically organized. Current technology would allow the user to click on the apparent website (actually on the DVD) and that would launch the connection to the Internet seamlessly moving from the DVD to websites with more in-depth information. At present much of the fuels treatment literature is dispersed in scientific journals or at disparate individual websites making it difficult to locate, filter and explore. We believe this new technology can help close the information gap between managers, scientists and the public.

IntroductionOne of the challenges of communicating fuel treatment information is reaching the

intended audience. Although fuel treatment managers are largely concentrated in federal and state land agencies, and a few dozen industry and nonprofit land owners, there are few formalized means of joint communication. Compounding this problem is a gulf between how research is often disseminated in science journals and the more applied information needs of managers focusing on local and regional fuel conditions. Scientists receive little if any training in communicating with groups besides other scientists. Managers have neither the time nor training to filter through research articles published in dozens of journals spread across several scientific and applied disciplines. Some outreach programs have suggested the internet could bridge this divide by providing websites, search engines and even chat rooms supplying a common ‘virtual’ library of information. Although the internet has helped, its decentralized nature and massive size often provide a ‘dump’ of unfiltered information that can be more overwhelming than informative. Effective outreach must provide the end user with a flexible information filter. But for the filter to be used, it first must gain the user’s attention and provide an information platform from which to search.

This proposal seeks funding to use a new technology, interactive DVD, to gain the user’s interest, provide a common information portal and a tool for flexible information acquisition. Interactive DVD provides a film, special features for more in-depth information, and an updating website organized as a search platform for targeted information gathering. The three parts are organized to provide different information tools depending on a user’s needs and interest level. The film is designed to provide context, frame issues, and present information of interest to all users in an appealing, accessible format. Special features are for users who want more in-depth information about particular aspects of the film (ex. how thinning prescriptions were developed for specific fuels conditions) and can be designed for different audiences (i.e., silviculturists, students, fire management officers, etc.). A ‘virtual’ website is also on the DVD, but clicking on any part of it launches a computer’s browser and brings up the actual website which is maintained and updated in response to user feedback. The website functions as a filter for focusing the user’s information needs and than links to appropriate sources, much like a book’s index but with a visual, intuitive interface. Interactive DVDs are fairly new and have developed as book

1

publishers and documentary filmmakers have sought a way to engage users visually while providing a virtual question and answer function using an interactive search tool.

The objective of this proposal is to make an interactive DVD titled “Fuel treatments and forest health” with a 30-35 minute film, 10 special features, a select pdf library of important publications and an interactive website. The film would have 3 objectives: 1) provide context on the effects of fire suppression, fuel and forest restoration treatments, and what role research can play; 2) provide an example by focusing on the results of the Teakettle Experiment which compared the effects of mechanical thinning, prescribed fire and there combination on ecosystem processes; and 3) how these results might be applied in fuel reduction practices. The special features would be short films (about 3-5 minutes each) that would provide more detail on 10 subjects: historical background and political issues; collaborative ecological field work; thinning and fire prescriptions, and their implementation; and fire and thinning effects on 7 ecological forest components, the soil environment, forest structure and composition, food webs and small mammals, ecosystem functions (microclimate, respiration and decomposition), fuels and coarse woody debris, water dynamics and drought stress, and pest and pathogens. The virtual website would launch whenever the DVD was played and would search for an internet connection. If the DVD is in a player or a computer without an internet connection, the website is still used to play the film, the special features, browse and open the pdf literature, and examine the website content on the DVD. If an internet connection is found, the updated website is loaded, with news and content additions, and the user can now actively find relevant information and websites.

To develop the film and interactive DVD, I will work with a screen writer, Stephen Most (CV attached), a film producer Janice Bowen (resume attached), and an interactive DVD company, Lobitos Creek Ranch (http://www.lobitoscreekranch.com). Stephen Most and Steve Michelson (Lobitos Creek Ranch) have produced an interactive DVD on the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Oil on Ice (http://www.oilonice.org) which will serve as a model for the DVD’s development. Janice Bowen will oversee the film crew, and edit and produce the Fuel Treatment and Forest Health film. The interactive DVD, the special features, and the website will be built by producers at Lobitos Creek Ranch. Upon completion, the maintenance and modification of the website will be turned over to the Sierra Nevada Research Center and a full-time (6 month term) webmaster employee. Feedback from users will be actively sought and used to update and improve the website.

The following section briefly describes the underlying research upon which this project would build, before providing more details about the interactive DVD project. The Teakettle Experiment, which received funding as a Demonstration Site by the Joint Fire Science program, will provide context for the film and serve as an example for presenting research potentially relevant to managers. While Teakettle is but one experiment working in a particular forest type (Sierran mixed conifer), the comparison of fire and thinning effects on ecosystem processes and the relevancy of the results for many fire-suppressed forest should be of general interest to fuel’s managers regardless of geographic location.

Underlying Research: The Teakettle ExperimentLike much of the western United States, Sierra Nevada forests have been significantly

altered by a century of logging and fire suppression. Many Sierra forests are now thickets of shade-tolerant species (e.g. white fir (Abies concolor), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)) which can “ladder” fire into the crowns of the overstory canopy. Without treatments these stands will eventually experience a catastrophic burn in which most trees are killed and soil is severely altered. Fire cannot be re-introduced into these forest conditions until stem density and ladder fuels have been reduced. Prescribed fire and mechanical thinning are widely used for reducing fuels and restoring forest health, but how do their ecological effects differ? To examine these differences the Teakettle Experiment (http://teakettle.ucdavis.edu) investigated ecosystem response to a combination of fire and

2

thinning, for 2 years before and 3 years after treatments, with a team of over 20 researchers and graduate students.

The experiment was conducted at the USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station’s Teakettle Experimental Forest on the Sierra National Forest approximately 80 km east of Fresno (Figure 1). Teakettle is 1300 ha of mixed-conifer forest, located 80 km east of Fresno in the drainage of the north fork of the Kings River.

Figure 1: Design and location of the Teakettle Experiment. Each treatment is replicated on 3 plots and each plot is 4 ha each in size (a 200 by 200 m square).

The Teakettle Experiment had 6 treatments using a full factorial design where prescribed burn/no burn was crossed with 3 thinning levels; no harvest, understory thinning and overstory thinning. Thinning treatments were marked by silviculturists with the Sierra National Forest and logged by a local contractor. The understory thinning followed widely used guidelines in the California Spotted Owl Report [CASPO] (Verner et al. 1992) designed to reduce fuels and minimize impacts on owls. The prescription removes all trees between 25 and 76 cm diameter at breast height (dbh). Overstory thinning followed shelterwood guidelines widely used before CASPO. The shelterwood prescription removes all trees > 25 cm dbh except 18-22 of the largest trees per ha, left in approximately a 20 by 20 m spacing. Trees were limbed where they fell and fuels left on site. Fuels were left to dry for one year, and than a prescribed fire was applied to the burn and thin treatments (BC and BS) and to the burn only plots (BN). The Sierra National Forest conducted the prescribed burn and followed their normal fall burn procedures. The fire was lit a week after the first substantial fall rain in cooler temperatures and higher humidity, and during a period allowed by the San Joaquin Air Quality District.

3

Cabin

bn1

uc1

us2un3

us3bc2

bc3

bs3

us1 uc2 uc3

un2

bn3bn2

bc1

bs2un1bs1

Garage

Thinning Level:

Burned/Shelterwood (BS)

Unburned/ Shelterwood (US)

Shelterwood (Overstory Thin)

Burned/CASPO (BC)

Unburned/CASPO (UC)

CASPO (Thin from Below)

Burn Only (BN)

Control (UN)None

BurnedUnburned

Cabin

bn1

uc1

us2un3

us3bc2

bc3

bs3

us1 uc2 uc3

un2

bn3bn2

bc1

bs2un1bs1

Garage

Thinning Level:

Burned/Shelterwood (BS)

Unburned/ Shelterwood (US)

Shelterwood (Overstory Thin)

Burned/CASPO (BC)

Unburned/CASPO (UC)

CASPO (Thin from Below)

Burn Only (BN)

Control (UN)None

BurnedUnburned

Burned/Shelterwood (BS)

Unburned/ Shelterwood (US)

Shelterwood (Overstory Thin)

Burned/CASPO (BC)

Unburned/CASPO (UC)

CASPO (Thin from Below)

Burn Only (BN)

Control (UN)None

BurnedUnburned

Study Components and Project ManagementAll studies were coordinated and

designed to provide data sets which could be analyzed across disciplines. Two methods were used to facilitate complimentary data collection: sampling at mapped grid points and complete plot stem maps of all trees, snags, logs and shrubs.

To maintain data exchange and coordination, all principle investigators meet annually at a workshop. A listserver and website were established to provide a common forum for exchanging information. Details of sampling protocol were posted for review and revised until all P.I.s reached agreement. The experimental design and study plan proposals were reviewed by three outside scientists with different areas of expertise.

Table 1: Scientists and graduate students listed by their study focus and institution.Study Principal Investigator InstitutionTree Pests and PathogensSmall MammalsUnderstory Response Fire history and spatial pattern Epiphyte Abundance & Diversity

Dave Rizzo and Tom SmithDoug Kelt and Marc MeyerRebecca WaymanRob Fiegener & Michael Barbour Tom Rambo

Univ. of CaliforniaDavis, CA

Decomposition and Soil Carbon Martin Jurgensen Michigan Tech. Univ. Houghton, MI

Microclimate, soil respiration, root growth and NPP

Jiquan Chen, Siyan Ma and Suong-Ryoul Rhu

University of Toledo, Toledo, OH

Canopy and Shrub Invertebrates Tim Schowalter Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, La

Tree Regeneration and Soil Moisture Andrew Gray and Harold Zald PNW FIA, Portland, ORSoil & CWD invertebratesCeanothus and frankia dynamics

Bob Edmonds, Jim Marra Brian Oakley and Jerry Franklin

Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA

Soil Nutrients Heather Erickson Oregon State U., Corvallis, OR

Seed rain and germination patterns Ruth Kern California State Univ.Fresno, CA

Mycorrhizal diversity Mycorrhizal facilitation of tree regeneration, water movement

Antonio Izzo and Tom Bruns Agneta Plamboeck and Todd Dawson

Univ.of California, Berkeley, CA

Nitrogen throughfall and leaching Dale Johnson University of NevadaReno, NV

Tree/shrub growth, mortality and distribution, Fuels, CWD

Malcolm North Jim Innes

FS PSW Research, Davis, CA

Results from the Teakettle Experiment

4

Herbivory

Respiration

DecompositionMortality

Evapotranspiration.Growth

Nutrient CyclingRegeneration

Core Processes

Soils Microclimate Forest Structure

Fungi Pathogens

InvertebratesEpiphytes

Plants

Com

pone

ntSt

udie

sEc

osys

tem

Res

pons

eM

anip

ulat

ions

Fire/ThinningFire + ThinningDirect Effects

Reduce BufferingAlter Litter Reduce Density

Decline

Herbivory

Respiration

DecompositionMortality

Evapotranspiration.Growth

Nutrient CyclingRegeneration

Core Processes

Soils Microclimate Forest Structure

Fungi Pathogens

InvertebratesEpiphytes

Plants

Com

pone

ntSt

udie

sEc

osys

tem

Res

pons

eM

anip

ulat

ions

Forest Health and Fuel Reduction

Fire/ThinningFire + ThinningDirect Effects

Reduce Buffering

Structure, Function, and Composition of Fuel-Loaded Forest

Alter Litter Reduce Density

Resilience

Herbivory

Respiration

DecompositionMortality

Evapotranspiration.Growth

Nutrient CyclingRegeneration

Core Processes

Soils Microclimate Forest Structure

Fungi Pathogens

InvertebratesEpiphytes

Plants

Com

pone

ntSt

udie

sEc

osys

tem

Res

pons

eM

anip

ulat

ions

Fire/ThinningFire + ThinningDirect Effects

Reduce BufferingAlter Litter Reduce Density

Decline

Herbivory

Respiration

DecompositionMortality

Evapotranspiration.Growth

Nutrient CyclingRegeneration

Core Processes

Soils Microclimate Forest Structure

Fungi Pathogens

InvertebratesEpiphytes

Plants

Com

pone

ntSt

udie

sEc

osys

tem

Res

pons

eM

anip

ulat

ions

Forest Health and Fuel Reduction

Fire/ThinningFire + ThinningDirect Effects

Reduce Buffering

Structure, Function, and Composition of Fuel-Loaded Forest

Alter Litter Reduce Density

Resilience

Although thinning may produce a forest structure and composition similar to prescribed fire, ecosystem response and functions were markedly different. Thinning significantly increased soil moisture, which before treatments was the most important limiting resource driving many ecosystem processes (everything from understory plant and invertebrate diversity to fungi, respiration and tree growth). However, many ecosystem functions did not positively respond to thinning-only treatments. For example, understory plant diversity and cover was significantly reduced, soil respiration and decomposition slowed and natural tree regeneration was scarce. Although our experiment was not designed to explicitly test the mechanisms for these changes, correlation analysis suggests this ‘stalled’ response may be largely due to the addition of litter, fine fuels and coarse woody debris to the forest floor. In thinned plots which were subsequently burned, many of the stand characteristics (e.g., canopy cover, soil moisture, and understory light) are similar to thin-only plots, but surface fuels have been consumed and a pulse of available nutrients entered the soil. In these thin and burn plots, the diversity of plants, invertebrates and fungi increased, as did respiration, decomposition and nutrient cycling rates. Spatial variability also increased, increasing environmental and habitat heterogeneity. The analysis of the herb, shrub and tree response, which to date has been the most detailed, suggests that influences on plant diversity and growth are now more complex mixes of light, nutrients and moisture than in pre-treated forests when water availability determined plant composition and cover.

A surprising finding was that burn-only treatments did little to change forest conditions from those found in the control. The reason was that the prescribed fire had little impact in these plots without the addition of logging slash to increase fire spread and intensity. Teakettle’s prescribed fire was lit in late October after the first substantial fall rain (2 cm) had wetted fuels and brought burn conditions into prescription. Rains also eased stagnant air conditions so that smoke management was in compliance with San Joaquin air quality regulators. These conditions, however, meant the fire often smoldered in the burn-only plot. In marked contrast, in the thin and burn treatments, where fuels were left to dry for one year, the prescribed fire consumed more than 85% of the surface fuels and killed many smaller diameter trees. A late October burn is outside the main period when Sierran fires historically burned (August and September). In California, however, late fall and early spring burns are often used to meet containment and air quality restrictions.

In our study, applying prescribed fire outside its historically frequent period (August and September) meant the fire did little to restore ecological functions without the addition of thinning fuels to increase the coverage and intensity of its functional ‘work’. Plot areas that had the greatest response to treatments were those with the most complete burn coverage and without any overstory crown loss. In locales where the fire spotted into the crown, if the resulting gap was large, post-burn microclimate conditions inhibited herb and invertebrate diversity and slowed respiration and decomposition rates. Therefore a second benefit of thinning is that it can help reduce large gap formation if it effectively removes ladder fuels. Thinning was most effective as a means for influencing fire behavior, not as an ecological restoration end in itself. In our study, forest health was most effectively restored when fuel manipulations were used to increase surface fire intensity and spread, and decrease crowning.

Technology Transfer to DateTo date our outreach efforts generally group into four areas; publications, talks,

workshops/field trips and outreach Powerpoint presentations. Listed below are outreach products in each of these categories.

PublicationsA collection of eight papers and an introduction of the Teakettle Experiment are

forthcoming (2005 expected) in Forest Science. This collection will detail ecological conditions in Sierran mixed conifer before treatments were applied, so that the effects of prescribed fire and mechanical thinning can be assessed. Five additional manuscripts are currently in review. A

5

second set of nine papers are in preparation on treatment effects on ecosystem components. These papers will be submitted this winter. Following manuscript submission, all Teakettle scientists are gathering for a meeting April 29-May 1 in Davis, CA to produce a synthesize paper (for Bioscience or Ecological Applications) that will integrate data from the different ecological components and discuss how mixed-conifer ecosystems responsd to different levels of fire and thinning. I will also use this meeting to begin interviewing and filming researchers. In addition to these 3 groups of papers (pre-treatment, post-treatment and synthesis), a number of additional papers are published, in press or in review, from research that evolved as the Teakettle Experiment developed.

Forest Science CollectionErickson, H., D. Johnson, B. Roath and C. Hunsaker. In press. Soil nutrient pools and fluxes

within a mixed-conifer forest: implications for an ecological restoration. Forest Science.Gray, A., H. Zald, R. Kern, and M. North. In press. Stand conditions associated with tree

regeneration in Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Forest Science.Izzo, A., M. Meyer, J. Trappe, M. North and T. Bruns. In press. Hypogeous ectomycorrhizal

root fungi on roots and in small mammal diets in a mixed-conifer forest. Forest Science.Ma, S., J. Chen, J.. Butnor, M. North, E.. Euskirchen, and Brian Oakley. In press. Biophysical

Controls on Soil Respiration in the Dominant Patch Types of an Old-Growth, Mixed-Conifer Forest. Forest Science.

Marra, J. and R. Edmonds. In press. Soil arthropod responses to different patch types in a mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada. Forest Science.

North, M., M. Hurteau, R. Fiegener, and M. Barbour. In press. Influence of fire and El Nino on tree recruitment varies by species in Sierran mixed conifer. Forest Science.

Schowalter, T. and Y. Zhang. In press. Canopy arthropod assemblages in four overstory and three understory plant species in mixed-conifer, old-growth forest in California. Forest Science.

Smith, T., D. Rizzo, and M. North. In press. Patterns of mortality in an old-growth mixed-conifer forest of the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Forest Science.

Other Teakettle PapersMa, S., J. Chen, M. North, H. Erickson, M. Bresee, and J. Le Moine. 2004. Short-term effects of

experimental treatments on soil respiration in an old-growth, mixed-conifer forest. Environmental Management 33(1): 148-159.

Meyer, M., D. Kelt, and M. North. In press. Nest trees of the northern flying squirrel in the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Mammalogy.

Meyer, M., M. North, and D. Kelt. In press. Short-term effects of fire and forest thinning on truffle abundance and consumption in the Sierra Nevada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

North, Malcolm P. 2002. The Teakettle Experiment. pp 47-54 in Jared Verner (tech. editor). Proceedings of a Symposium on the Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystems Project: Progress and Current Status. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183.

North, M., B. Oakley, J. Chen, H. Erickson, A. Gray, A. Izzo, D. Johnson, S. Ma, J. Marra, M. Meyer, K. Purcell, T. Rambo, B. Roath, D. Rizzo, T. Schowalter. 2002. Vegetation and ecological characteristics of mixed-conifer and red-fir forests at the Teakettle Experimental Forest. USFS General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-186.North, M., J. Chen, B. Oakley, B. Song, M. Rudnicki, and A. Gray. 2004. Forest stand structure and pattern of old-growth western hemlock/Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer forest. Forest Science 50 (3):299-311.

6

North, M., B. Oakley, R. Fiegener, A. Gray and M. Barbour. In press. Influence of light and soil moisture on Sierran mixed-conifer understory communities. Plant Ecology.

Oakley B, M. North, and J. Franklin. 2003 The effects of fire on soil nitrogen associated with patches of the actinorhizal shrub Ceanothus cordulatus. Plant and Soil 254:35-46.

Oakley, B., M. North, J. Franklin, B. Hedlund, and J. Staley. 2004. Diversity and distribution of Frankia strains symbiotic with Ceanothus in California. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 70: 6444-6452.

Student Theses and DissertationsFiegener, R. 2002. Influence of sampling intensity on the fire history of Teakettle Experimental

Forest, Sierra Nevada, California: small fire detection, the composite fire chronology and fire interval calculation. MS thesis. University of California, Davis.

Ma, S. 2003. Interactions between microclimate, soil respiration, and disturbances in a forest ecosystem: Lessons from the Teakettle Experimental Forest in California’s Sierra Nevada. PhD dissertation. University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.

Meyer, M. 2003. Forests, fungi, and small mammals: The impact of fire and thinning on a tri-trophic mutualism. PhD dissertation. University of California, Davis.

Oakley, B. 2003. An investigation into the ecology and biogeography of the Ceanothus-Frankia symbiosis. PhD dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle.

Wayman, R. 2004. Initial response of a Sierran mixed-conifer understory community to burning and thinning restoration treatments. MS thesis. University of California, Davis.

TalksAn important component to communicating Teakettle’s results has been giving talks to

groups that might not otherwise be familiar with the experiment. Talks on the Teakettle Experiment have been given at 9 universities (U.C. Davis and Berkeley, Oregon State University, University of Washington, University of New Hampshire, Michigan Technology University, the University of Toledo, Beijing University, and Harvard Forest), 7 conferences (Ecological Society of America, International Association of Vegetation Scientists, Association of Fire Ecologists, International Conference of Mycology, Research in the Sierra Nevada, USFS Sierra Nevada Framework, Forest Ecologists), a technical workshop (Society of American Foresters, Fresno branch), and at 2 National Parks (Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon).

Field Trips/WorkshopsWe’ve had three field trips (the Quincy Library Group, FS and California Department of

Forest personnel, and interested individuals from industry and environmental organizations) and one workshop on the Teakettle Experiment. In general, however, I don’t think the Teakettle Experiment has been very effective using this approach because of the experiment’s location and schedule constraints. At a workshop early in the experiment (1999), attending silviculturists, fuel’s management officers and forest managers indicated it would be better to see the site, ‘kick the dirt’, and discuss the experiment in its context. Unfortunately due to snow, Teakettle is only accessible June to early October. This is a time when most of the intended audience is busy with field work or wildfires. When we tried to set up a summer field trip, we found most of the agency personnel who’d expressed interest at the workshop couldn’t attend because of other commitments. We’ve kept an open door policy, so that anyone interested in the experiment is welcome to come up and will be given a tour. However, given the Experimental Forest’s location, a two hour drive from Fresno, there have only been a handful of people who’ve taken advantage of this policy.

It’s clear that seeing the fuel treatments and the forest is an important part of communicating the experiment’s results and providing context. I always find it easier to discuss

7

and illustrate the intent of the Teakettle Experiment against a backdrop of the forest and treated plots. The proposed film is an effort to bring that backdrop to interested viewers since many of them can’t get to the research area. Although it’s always preferable to actually be at a site, one advantage to the film is that it can direct viewers to other knowledge sources if those are integrated into the presentation. The question and answer session can directly jump to relevant information sites and provide richer and more relevant content than verbal answers in the field.

Outreach PresentationsFrom the initial efforts at setting up workshops, it was clear that Teakettle was going to

have to go to interested audiences rather than the audience coming to Teakettle. I contracted with the Information Center for the Environment (ICE) at UC Davis to produce two powerpoint talks for specific audiences: a short summary of the experiment for administrators and policy decision makers (the ‘elevator speech’), and a longer presentation covering the response of different ecological components of mixed conifer to fire and thinning treatments for forest managers, silviculturists and fire management officers. ICE was used to professionally develop the slide content and to test it on different audiences to gauge how effective the information content was presented. This proved to be valuable as content provided by the scientists often needed to be ‘translated’ for clarity and edited for its management implications. In effect ICE facilitated feedback between the audience and scientists until the powerpoint contents were relevant to viewers while remaining consistent with the experiment’s scientific results.

The two powerpoint talks have been completed and are being printed on CDs which will be sent to over 50 agency, industry and environmental organization individuals who’ve been interested in the Teakettle Experiment. We have also posted the talks on the Teakettle website (they can be downloaded from the presentations page at http://teakettle.ucdavis.edu) and through email list servers have encouraged any interested agency personnel to download the presentations.

A third project with ICE was to develop a film of the Teakettle Experiment for managers and students interested in forest health and fuel treatments. At Teakettle we filmed the plots, researchers and technicians discussing their work, and scientists and students doing research. In this case, however, it became clear that translating the science into an interesting film was a more difficult challenge. ICE did not have expertise with screen writing and the footage didn’t clearly suggest how a compelling narrative could be constructed. Interviews varied and much of the content was technical and jargon laden. Field conditions at Teakettle also proved challenging for film and sound work. Sierran forest and gaps have such high light contrast that much of the footage was under or over exposed. Clean sound was difficult to capture because of wind, insects and creek noise. Compounding these challenges was the basic film equipment available through ICE which used the mini DV format and directional microphones. It was clear we could not produce a compelling film within the original budget and without professional film makers. It was at this point that I began searching for a professional screen writer and reviewed the work and resume of several writers. Stephen Most was selected because of the quality of his writing, depth of experience, and his familiarity with the Forest Service and the film’s context, having just finished the script for the Forest Service’s centennial film “The Greatest Good”.

Proposed Follow-on Technology TransferAn interactive DVD would be produced that would provide context for fuel treatment

issues, science summary of a relevant research project, in-depth information on selected subjects and a portal for identifying and finding relevant internet information. Our target audience is forest managers, fuels specialists, silviculturists, policy makers, students and scientists. The DVD would have four components. First, a 30-35 film, “Fuel Treatments and Forest Health”, would be produced in Beta cam SP format. A first draft of the script for the film, written by Stephen Most (see resume in appendix) can be viewed at http://teakettle.ucdavis.edu/data (access

8

the data website using the password ‘1492’ and find a Word version of the script at the top of the page). Second, 10 short special features films would also be produced providing in-depth information about particular management issues and ecological components. Third, a collection of 20-30 highly-relevant documents (ex. Healthy Forests Initiative legislation, The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration [USDA INT-GTR-341], Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity [USDA RMRS-GTR-120]) would be collected, converted to pdf format and organized into a library. Four, an interactive website would be built that visually organizes information by theme: Geographic location (a clickable map of the US that would bring up a regional clickable map

[modeled after NOAA’s weather website]);Forest type (picture and SAF type);User occupation (silviculturists, manager, FMO, student, scientist, etc.);Fuel treatment (different thinning prescriptions, mastication, pile and burn, etc.)Ecosystem attribute (soils, wildlife, plants, etc.);Forum (questions and answers and a link to Fire Research and Management Exchange System

(FRAMES));News (political, policy and legislative updates);Research experiments (by geographic location and theme);Literature reviews (ex. http://www.nps.gov/seki/fire/fire_bib.htm)

There are many good websites already out there (ex. Fire Effects Information System (FEIS), the Fire/Fire Surrogate Study, Ecological Restoration Institute) but no portal website which organizes the disparate information by theme and channels the user to the information they need.

All four of these components would be put on the DVD. The website would launch when the DVD is loaded and be the principle tool for accessing all of the information. From the website, users could play the film or the special features, access the pdf library or explore the web content. If the player had an internet connection, the user would see an active version of the website (same layout but with current news and updated content) and be able to actively link to other websites containing desired information.

ScheduleMany of the pieces for undertaking this project are already in place (script drafted,

personnel identified and contacted, all-hands meeting scheduled) and therefore the schedule is ‘front-loaded’ and rapid. If this proposal were funded, I realize funds would not be available until sometime in the summer. I have appraised my Project Leader (Pete Stine) and PSW’s Station Director (Jim Sedell) of this situation. Both are very supportive of this project and have committed to finding bridging loans until the budget was in place, if the proposal were funded.

FY 2005:April 29-May 1: All hands meeting for Teakettle scientists and graduate students. Each would

be interviewed on film.May 23-27: First filmshoot at TeakettleJune: Producer assembles first cut of the film

Screen writer reviews and develops revised script and interview questionsScreen writer, producer and PI identify additional footage needed

July 13-15: Second filmshoot at TeakettleAugust: Producer assembles production cut

PI and Screen writer review cutScreen writer develops narrative

9

September: Narrative recordedSound and film tracks combined and editedFilm product finished

FY 2006:October: DVD producer reviews film and begins building special features

Web master and PI develop a draft websiteNovember: DVD producer finishes first cut of special features for PI and Screen writer

reviewWeb master conducts extensive internet search for materials and establishes links

December: DVD producer finishes special featuresWeb master constructs pdf library on DVDWeb master produces first draft of interactive website

January: All components are assembled on the DVDProducer, screen writer, PI and testers beta test the DVD

February: Producer and webmaster incorporate beta test revisionsFinal interactive DVD produced

March: DVDs are burned, packaged and mailedPSW takes over website

April-Sept: Website maintained and updated from user response

10